NBC Goes Over the Line

I love good political satire and the whole Tina Fey as Sarah Palin bit was hilarious. But last week's bit about Todd Palin and incest was neither funny nor appropriate.

I don't watch Saturday Night Live a lot, and I probably won't be for a while.

Sarah Palin is GASP!! A Politician

Shocking, I know. Apparently the New York Times has never met a Democratic politician.

Palin's Email Account Hacked

Michelle Malkin has the details on the hacking of Sarah Palin's personal email account.

Look, her Alaska Government account is fair game, but her private email account is just that, private. Hacking it is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison and a pretty hefty fine.

Publication of private photos and the private email accounts of her family members is invasion of privacy. Sarah Palin is a public figure. Todd Palin could be described as a public figure (but I haven't seen him make any public appearances since the convention) and certainly the minor children of Sarah and Todd Palin are entitled to their privacy (despite what people may think otherwise).

That hackers did their crime is one thing, that people at Gawker Media think it is then fair game for the media cesspool is another. Sure, right now we don't know if Gawker did the hacking (and I, unlike Gawker, am willing to give them the benefit of hte doubt), but they knowingly published information gather in an illegal manner and there should be consequences.

Sarah Palin and Feminism

Seriously, go read this essay by Harvard's Harvey Mansfield.

Sarah Palin was appealing and accomplished, with the force of a man and the grace of a woman. But while reaching another, higher first for women, she expressed no gratitude to the women's movement. She has had good words for women politicians like Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton, but she showed none of the features that betray the feminist in action. On the contrary: She spoke proudly of "my guy," grateful to the man who was hers--implying that she needed him, and that any woman needs a guy of her own. She introduced her children, especially little Trig, the one with Down's syndrome. She was displaying a mother's unconditional love, as opposed to the conditional love that insists on a "wanted" child. She did these things unapologetically, quite unafraid of seeming to be a normal, healthy sexist female: one who knows what it is to be a woman and enjoys it.

All Sarah Palin did was to claim her equal opportunity to a job once held exclusively by men. This sort of equality--the opportunity to take on public careers outside the home--is something liberals and conservatives agree on. That conservatives accept it is proven by the rapturous reception she received from Republicans, who greeted her as a political savior.

This she may or may not be, but she seems to have had the effect of enthusing the base, in part because of her sex.

Now, why could the women's movement not have taken advantage of this bipartisan agreement from the beginning? What impelled it to adopt a radical feminism hostile to both liberals and conservatives? Was this feminism necessary to attack male domination and to stir up the status quo?

An obvious difference between the women's movement and the civil rights movement is the ease with which the former triumphed. Of course there was male chauvinism at the start, but it was complacent, passive and ineffective. No man could look a woman in the eye and say "you are not equal to me" once the issue was put. There was nothing like the "massive resistance" to racial desegregation in the South; instead, there was a massive movement of women into jobs and careers.

Here is the interesting thing, while Palin may have benefited from the women's movement of the 50's and 60's I see her rise as simply the latest step in a society in which women are both the social and political equals of men. No Palin does not thank the women's movement, but she is a result of their efforts, their bipartisan efforts, rather than a result of the radical brand of feminism we as a society think of when we hear the term "feminist."

Sarah Palin is a woman, of that there is no doubt. She is a smart, successful, attractive woman. Thirty years ago that was an acceptable description of someone who most likely would never have risen to the heights Palin now has achieved.

Feminists want very much to be considered the equal of men in all things (as if there were possible). But the radical feminist movement has corrupted that notion. The women's movement of the 50's and 60's would have embraced the success of Sarah Palin--a woman who had succeeded on her own terms, in her own way, indeed in a manner that suggests feminity while at the same time displaying a strenght that is to be admired, not pilloried.

But Radical Feminism is more about rejecting the femine in favor of something more masculine. Radical feminism reminds of the seen in Working Girl, where at a bar, Harrison Ford's charachter remarks to Melanie Girffiths's femme appearence, "you are the first woman I have seen at these things that actually dresses like a woman rather than like a woman things a man would dress if he were a woman" or something to that effect.

Feminist success has been built upon the notion that women can do anything a man can do, a notion which is not only ludicrous for its biological impossibility (right now a woman cannot get another woman pregnant, for example) but also for the ludirous belief that there are no differences between men and women (and what a boring world that would be).

Yes, in terms of intellectual and business pursuits there are no differences. Any dolt who thinks so is a relic of the past. However, just because a woman deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of employers or the law does not mean that there are not differences between the two sexes.

Interestingly, radical feminism is premised on the notion as well, that a woman can be as tough as a man, a truism in every sense of the word and probably more so. But oddly enough, when Sarah Palin acts tough and feminine, that is somehow an affront to feminism.

So far in our history only two women have been nominated to be Vice President. Democrat Geraldine Ferraro and Republican Sarah Palin. Ferraro had the misfortune to be paired with Walter Mondale against Ronald Reagan, a match up doomed to failure for the Democrats. Now in a open seat, the woman with the possibility of being the first woman elected to the executive branch is a woman who is every bit the result of the women's movement, but not the heir to feminism.

Troopergate No More

Makes you wonder a little about how desperate Democrats are.

Lame Palin Scandal

She installed a tanning bed in the Governor's mansion one her own dime.

Yes, she paid for the tanning bed.

So, what is the big deal here? What makes this different than installing your own stereo system or bringing your own bed or other furniture. She used her own money to buy the bloody thing, which I admit might look like an extravagence, but maybe she suffers from Seasonal Affective Disorder?

Sarah Palin: Is She Unqualified Under Implicit Constitutional Standards

John Dean seems to think so, in what has to be one of the most slanted and shoddy essays posted at Findlaw. Dean's clearly slanted political views and the facts in the real world, point up that Dean's reasoning is inherently flawed.

What are the constitutionl requirements to be Vice president? Not surprisingly they are the same as the president:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. "

That is it. Constitutionally, Sarah Palin is qualified to be President and therefore Vice President.

Dean argues that the Framers did not consider the Vice Presidency that much, noting that initially the second place finisher in the Presidential Electoral College vote became the Vice President. This flaw was addressed in the 12th Amendemnt which mandated that the Electors vote separately for President and Vice President. However, the Framers did know that the Vice President was literally a heartbeat away from the presidency. Initially, the Framers wrote in Art. II, Section 1,

"In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. "

This section was altered by the 25th Amendment which will be discussed below. The Framers knew that succession to the Presidency was not only a possibility, but a veritably certainty at some point in our future.

Dean then argues that the 25th Amendment created "implicit" qualificaions for the Vice Presidency. In a section Dean titles The Twenty-fifth Amendment Suggests the Primary Qualifications for Vice Presidents: Be Equipped to Serve as President Starting, if Necessary, on Day OneDean, however, does not state how this requirement is any different under the 25th Amendment than it is under the original consitution that operated prior to the adoption of the 25th Amendment in 1967. Dean then talks about the two times the 25th Amendment has been invoked to find a "replacement" Vice President, both for Richard Nixon (after Spiro Agnew resigned ) and Gerald Ford when he ascended to the Presidency. Dean writes:

Both Nixon and Ford explained their decisions, and the criteria at the top of their lists. Nixon wrote in RN: Memoirs of Richard Nixon that from "the outset of the search for a new Vice President I had established four criteria for the man I would select: qualification to be President; ideological affinity; loyalty and confirmability." (Emphasis added.) Nixon's first choice was his Secretary of Treasury John Connally, who was dropped because he would have confirmation problems. (Connally was, in fact, later indicted but acquitted.) New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and California Governor Ronald Reagan were taken off Nixon's list because the selection of either one over the other would have split the Republican Party. Finally, also on the list was Jerry Ford, the Minority Leader of the House, on whom Nixon settled.

Ford explained in A Time To Heal: The Autobiography of Gerald R. Ford that he had given considerable thought to filling the vice presidency when he became president, and his staff developed a ranking system. "There was one overriding criterion," he wrote to explain his baseline: "[H]e had to be a man fully qualified to step into my shoes should something happen to me."

Ford's top aides eliminated George H. W. Bush, who had served in the House of Representatives and headed the Republican National Committee, "as not yet ready to handle the rough challenges of the Oval Office." And when Ford settled on one of the wealthiest men in America, Nelson Rockefeller, it resulted in protracted confirmation hearings because of the extent of Rockefeller's holdings (which might have raised conflicts of interest). But in the end, Rockefeller was confirmed.

But the considerations that Nixon and Ford used were and are not Constitutional requirements, but personal requirements. Nor are these implicit requirements.

Now both Nixon and Ford had to deal with a confirmation process imposed by Congress in the 25th Amendment, namely that a "replacement" Vice President had to be voted on by all of Congress. So why teh vote? Because officially, the people, through the Electoral College vote on a Vice President and in this case Congress is acting in the stead of the Electoral College. What has never been tested is the concept of whether a nomination by the President for a replacement Vice president would be rejected since in the normal course of business, a Presidential candidate chooses his running mate as we have seen.

The 25th Amendment also sets the line of succession for the presidency, so let us look at those offices in order for the first say 5 slots (cause we would be in some severly deep excrement if we got even to that point:

Vice President--fine--the people voted on that officeholder through the Electoral College
Speaker of the House--theoretically this office could be held by someone Constitutionally ineligble for the presidency, i.e. someone under the age of 35 (not likely but possible) or more likely, not born in the United States. The qualificaiton for this office? Essentially they are a partisan leader elected by the majority party in the House of Representatives, they are not elected by even the pretense of a majority of Americans, but by the voters of one district--hardly a consensus choice. As is currently the condition, the Speaker could be of an the opposition party to the President's party.
President Pro Tem of the Senate--This is traditioanlly the longest serving member of the majority party in the Senate, that is all. This person is almost assuredly older than the president (Robery Byrd is significantly older than even John McCain.) This person could be from the opposite party of the President and is elected only by one state.
Secretary of State--While this person is appointed by the President, there are no other qualifications strictly necessary for this job other than the faith of the president and a confirmation by the Senate (which at least ensures some minimal competency). However, this person could be ineligble to be President (Madelaine Albright was because she was not a natural born citizen).
Secretary of the Treasury--see Secretary of State.

Dean argues that it would be unlikely that Sarah Palin would confirmed by the Congress under the 25th Amendment. But first, he does not know that, so it is easy for him to make that claim. One could argue that given that a Presidential Candidate can choose his running mate that he should be able to choose his own vice President in the event the office is vacant and no matter who controls the Congress, they selection would be approved "based on inter-branch comity." Dean then states that Palin is not in the same league as Gerald Ford or Nelson Rockefeller.

Maybe that is true, but neither is Barack Obama and herein lies the great fault of Dean's argument, namely that it is not consistent with the actual facts. Palin has just as much experience (and vastly more executive experience) than Barack Obama. Would Barack Obama be confirmed by Congress under teh 25th Amendment? If the sole arbiter is experience, then the answer would be NO. At least I have no more proof than Dean.

A Candidate's Faith

Betsy Newmark talks about how the media has been dissecting Sarah Palin's faith, but has been ignoring for all intents and purposes Barack Obama, Joe Biden and even John McCain's faith.

I realize that the Pentecostal church's practices seem odd to those of other faiths, but as a nonpracticing Jew, I've long felt that all religions seem odd to outsiders. If you start dissecting what people believe and trying to apply logic to a religion's tenets, you'll sooner or later encounter some belief that defies logic. That is why it is called faith.

Of course faith is illogical and inherent defiant of the conditions around us.

What is interesting to me is how people use their faith to work their way through those crises of faith. Sarah Palin has a son with Down's Syndrome. Surely one would question why a God would bestow upon an otherwise model family a child with such needs. Sarah Palin and Bristol Palin and the rest of the Palin clan surely had a crisis of faith relating to a teenage pregnancy.

John McCain must surely have questioned whether a benevolen god would allow him to be tortured as he was. Joe Biden may have questioned the benevolence of his faith when his first wife was killed.

I don't mean to compare the difficulties of these families, each can only be adjudged for their difficulty based upon the individual circumstances.

But they all point to one common notion. One of the inherently illogical factors of faith is that we cling to the notion of a kind Creator, even after suffering such tragedies or travails in our life. The various inconsistencies of religious rituals are not what makes something a faith, but it is the illogical maintenance of that faith in the face of clear tragedy.

Mark Steyn on Media Manipulation

Steyn is on a particularly good rant responding to Howard Kurtz' whining about how the McCain camp is manipulating the media. Kurtz rights:

The media are getting mad.

Whether it's the latest back-and-forth over attack ads, the silly lipstick flap or the continuing debate over Sarah and sexism, you can just feel the tension level rising several notches.

Maybe it's a sense that this is crunch time, that the election is on the line, that the press is being manipulated (not that there's anything new about that).

News outlets are increasingly challenging false or questionable claims by the McCain campaign, whether it's the ad accusing Obama of supporting sex-ed for kindergartners (the Illinois legislation clearly describes "age-appropriate" programs) or Palin's repeated boast that she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere (after she had supported it, and after Congress had effectively killed the specific earmark).

Here is a thought, perhaps if the media weren't so desperate to remain relevant that they would print essentially the spin put out by the campaigns, maybe everyone would be better off. Both campaigns put out questionably framed matters and sometimes outright fabrications with a infinitesimailly small kernel of truth and the media report it as news. It is not, it is campaign material not news.

Steyn then points out:

Howie feels the press is being "manipulated" by the McCain campaign.

Maybe it is. A conventional launch strategy for a little-known vice-presidential nominee might have involved "manipulating" the media into running umpteen front-pagers on Sarah Palin's amazing primary challenge of a sitting governor and getting the sob-sisters to slough off a ton of heartwarming stories about her son shipping out to Iraq.

But, if you were really savvy, you'd "manipulate" the media into a stampede of lurid drivel deriding her as a Stepford wife and a dominatrix, comparing her to Islamic fundamentalists, Pontius Pilate and porn stars, and dismissing her as a dysfunctional brood mare who can't possibly be the biological mother of the kid she was too dumb to abort. Who knows? It's a long shot, but if you could pull it off, a really cunning media manipulator might succeed in manipulating Howie's buddies into spending the month after Labor Day outbidding each other in some insane Who Wants To Be An Effete Condescending Media Snob? death-match. You'd not only make the press look like bozos, but that in turn might tarnish just a little the fellow these geniuses have chosen to anoint.

Yes, the traditional media manipulation would be to build a warm and fuzzy picture of the first woman to appear on the GOP ticket, not all the crap that came out.

The traditional media thinks it needs to compete with the blogosphere, but the blogosphere, in large part is not beholden to a sense of "ethics" that traditional journalism claims sets them apart from the rabble such as I. Maybe take a little time to think about what a reporter writes before launching into attacks on either side.

And Howard Kurtz, you are a whiny little pansy if you think the media is being manipulated. An industry can only be manipulated if the industry allows it. Tell you "colleagues" to grow a backbone.

You Can Still Contribute to McCain/Palin

Over at RedState Brad Smith notes that you can still contribute to McCain's campaign.

The campaign may still raise money for what is called it's GELAC account - the "General Election Legal and Accounting" Fund. This fund is used to cover accounting and especially legal expenses, and can total as much as $20 million or even more (it's not cheap complying with "McCain-Feingold").

Of course, the legal and accounting would be cheaper if McCain hadn't foisted the McCain/Feingold bill upon the political public.

Fusing Politics and Motherhood

I thought this quote from the NY Times story about Sarah Palin's youngest was somehow apt.

She assured them she would not take much time off: she had returned to work the day after giving birth to Piper. “To any critics who say a woman can’t think and work and carry a baby at the same time,” she said, “I’d just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave.”

I know mothers often taken weeks off after having a child, just the physical strain is enough. But after five children, I think Palin was congnizant of her limitations.

I am not sure what all the hubbub's about. the NY Times called the story fusing politics and motherhood in a new way. I didn't see anything in the story that indicated what Sarah Palin is doing is new in terms of motherhood. What is new is that a mother with school age or younger children is running for the Vice Presidency, but motherhood and politics is nothing new.

By the way, Todd Palin took a leave of absence from his job to help care for the newborn and is doing the same now that Sarah Palin is on the campaign trail. How many men can say they would do the same?

Works for Me Too

Kathryn Jean Lopez:

An email:

Quickly:

Palin being a heartbeart away from the Presidency if far more reassuring that Nancy Pelosi being two heartbeats from the Presidency.

That works for me...

Right now that is where Pelosi sits and the Cheney heartbeat is not the most consistent around.

Barone on McCain Avoiding the Bush III Label

Thisis why Barone is so good.

Tammy Bruce on Sarah Palin

In teh San Francisco Chronicle:

Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

They are deciding women's rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.

Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.

Quite so.

Sarah Palin is dangerous to the Democratic Party because she is a Republican woman who is confident in herself, has chosen to have both a family and a career, thinks for herself and it should be noted independently of her husband and can wear an M-5 assault rifle with the same flair as an evening gown.

She is the feminist ideal-- her own woman on her own terms.

ABC News: Is Oprah Biased?

This is the level of chuckleheadedness that network news has fallen to:ABC News ask Is Oprah Biased?

Well duh, she has been panting over Obama like a 15 year old girl panting over the star athlete in high school.

Dumb question.

Next question.

Does Oprah's Refusal to Interview Palin Really Matter?

In a word no it doesn't. But Oprah's statement about the matter reeks with hypocrisy. Here is Oprah's statement as posted by Drudge:

"The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over." (emphasis added)

Or course, running with Oprah's statement is a picture of her, on her set interviewing Obama.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Oprah.

Oprah is of course free to endorse who she wants and she is free to determine who will be on her show. She has both the first amendmendment press and speech rights to do so. But you can't say you won't use your show as a platform for any of the candidates and have a candidate that you support on your show. It is a lie and she knows it.

Frankly, I don't think she would know what to say or do with Sarah Palin. Oprah has never shown any skill at nuanced thinking and the many layers of Sarah Palin simply confuse her. Oprah would no doubt spend the entire interview questioning Palin's choices, Track Palin, Bristol Palin, Trig Palin and all the other stuff the media has spent a week spinning. Oprah looks like a good interview because she acts like she cares and she has perfected that intense look of empathy, but the fact of the matter is that Oprah doesn't really know how to handle a substantive interview.

In short, Palin scares her because Palin can do the shallow and the deep, whereas Oprah only knows the shallow.

So Oprah doesn't want to have Sarah Palin on her show. Fine, it is her choice. But make no mistake about it, the reason Palin won't be on Oprah show has nothing to do with Winfrey not wanting her show to be used as a platform for candidates and everything to do with the fact that Palin would sway the audience that Oprah is trying desperatly to deliver to Obama.

Sarcastic=Unladylike

One of the common refrains I am seeing in the Democratic talking points about Sarah Palin's speech last night is that she was sarcastic. Ann Althouse, no arch-conservative she, notes it as well:

Oh, yes, sarcastic. That reminds me. I saw Paul Begala on some morning show and he was using that word. He said that Palin was excellent when she was telling her life story, but then when she got into the criticisms of Barack Obama, she was sarcastic, and that wasn't good.

Step back, little lady. Be good. Be nice. Tell us about your children and what you like to cook for dinner and how much you love your hubby.

Grrrr... my feminist blood boils.

A VP candidate is supposed to attack the opposing side--it is expected. Palin did her job well.

First MSM Mention of Track Palin

And his impending deployment. Here:

Finally, he greeted Ms. Palin’s son, Track, 19, who is to be deployed to Iraq later this month. Then two of his own sons, Jimmy and Jack, who are currently in the military came over to chat with Mr. McCain and Track Palin.

More Victor Davis Hanson

Why don't we listen to this guy more. Thoughts on to Palinize.... and Sarah Palin.

Why does the left and liberal media, in McCarthyite fashion, now seek to destroy rather than just oppose these public servants?

First, there is the annoited's notion that the noble ends justify the slimy means, that whether the issue is abortion or affirmative action or any other hot-button social gospel, the supposed interests of the many override the common decency that should be afforded the few.

Second, as in the case of a Palin or Thomas, there is the notion that the slandered deserve it as interloppers—unauthentic women or minorities due to their conservative views, who piggyback on the hard work of feminists and those in the race/identity politics movement. They purportedly do not show enough appreciation and deference to the pioneers who suffered so much to give us abortion on demand, quotas in hiring, etc. and as ingrates thus get what they deserve. For talking-head feminists that a Sally Quin, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton—unlike Sarah Palin—had a well-connected, influential male around to energize her career is of no concern—except perhaps to make the animus against the outsider upstart even greater.

Being a mother of a Down syndrome child, raising five children, rising, without money or family influence, to the governorship on an anti-corruption and commonsense platform, in addition to trying to run the largest-sized state in the union, critical to both the energy and defense security of the nation, all that should have made liberals and feminists, if reluctantly, nevertheless appreciative of her success in a mostly male political world.

Not this week, perhaps—but soon there will be a backlash against all this creepiness. Just watch...

I will be watching and I am hoping Sarah the Barracuda comes to St. Paul tonight and puts a brutal, from-the-other-side-of-the-rink, cross-check on the Left, the Media and the Obama campaign, followed by target practice on the carcass.

A Sarah Palin Funny

From National Review:

It would almost be worth having Ah-nuld attend the convention just so he could step up to the podium in a leather jacket and sunglasses and say, "I'm heah for Sarah Palin," then stretch his hand out towards and add, "Come wit me if you want to win."